Haryana

Karnal

CC/49/2015

Gurpreet Singh S/o Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Bhagwan Dass

01 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                              Complaint No.49 of 2015

                                                             Date of instt.:24.03.2015

                                                               Date of decision 1.8.2016

 

Gurpreet Singh son of Shri Kuldeep Singh resident of village Gudha, Indri District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. PNB Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered office: Brigade Seshamahal’ 5 Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560004 through its Managing Director.

2. Branch Manager, PNB Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO no.223, Second Floor, Sector-12, Urban Estate Karnal.

                                                                 ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Bhagwan Dass Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri N.K.Sukhan Advocate for opposite parties.

 

                                       

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he obtained insurance policy no.20699689 from the opposite parties in the month of December, 2011 under the plan Met Monthly Income Plan 7 Pay.  Premium paying term was 7 years, policy term was 15 years and mode of payment was annual. He deposited Rs.1,20,000/- on 30.12.2011, Rs.1,20,000/- in December 2012, Rs.61,571.82/- in December, 2013 and Rs.61,571.82/-in  May, 2014. However, due to financial position, he was unable to continue with the said policy. Therefore, he requested the branch office of the opposite parties at Karnal to discontinue the said policy and refund the entire amount deposited by him alongwith interest thereon as per entitlement, but the opposite party no.2 refused to accede to his genuine request. Ultimately, he got served the legal notice dated 16.1.2015 upon the opposite party no.1. Reply to the said notice was given by opposite party no.1 on 30.1.2015, wherein it was submitted that the amount would be returned after deduction of the surrender charges, but even that the amount has not been paid to him so far. He has claimed refund of the total amount of Rs.3,63,143.64/- deposited by him alongwith interest thereon @ 18% per annum apart from Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is barred by limitation; that the complaint does not fall within the definition of consumer dispute and that the complaint is malafide and misconceived.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant made payment of Rs.1,20,000/- on 31.12.2012 towards premium due for 22.12.2012. On 23.12.2013 the opposite parties received a request from the complainant for premium payment mode change to half yearly and the said request was allowed. On 27.12.2013 the complainant deposited Rs.61,572/- towards premium due for 22.12.2013 and he remitted the amount of Rs.61,572/- on 11.7.2014 towards premium due for 22.6.2014. Thereafter, the complainant failed to remit the payment towards the premium due for 22.12.2014. Resultantly, the policy moved to reduced paid-up-status as per the non-forfeiture option opted by the complainant himself and the sum assured reduced to Rs.4,29,531/-. It has further been pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the policy cancellation could not be possible after lapse of free look period. However, the complainant has been allowed to surrender the policy. In reply to the notice of the complainant, it was clarified that he can surrender the policy as per terms and conditions under which the policy was issued, but he never approached the opposite parties to surrender the said policy. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C3 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Motty John General Manager Legal Ex.O1 and document Ex.O2 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant obtained Met Monthly Income Plan 7 Pay policy from the opposite parties, the  premium term was 7 years and policy term was 15 years and that he has deposited Rs.1,20,000/- on 30.12.2011, Rs.1,20,000/- in December 2012, Rs.61,571.82/- in December, 2013 and Rs.61,571.82/-in May, 2014. Thereafter, he discontinued to make payment and requested the opposite parties to refund the amount of premium deposited by him.

7.                The opposite parties have submitted that the policy could be cancelled within free look period of 15 days after delivery of the policy and thereafter the complainant could claim surrender value of the policy after surrendering the policy with the opposite parties.

8.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset the complainant has not disputed the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He deposited premiums upto May, 2014 and thereafter due to his financial position he did not want to continue the policy. No doubt as per terms and conditions, the policy could not be cancelled beyond the free look period of 15 days of receipt of the policy document, but thereafter the insured could certainly claim the surrender value of the policy. Learned counsel for the complainant could not point out any term or condition of the policy according to which the complainant could get refund of the entire amount of premiums deposited by him with the opposite parties. Therefore, the denial of the claim of the complainant regarding refund of the entire amount of premiums deposited by him, cannot be termed as deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. However, the complainant can surrender the policy and he is entitled to get surrender value as per terms and conditions of the policy and opposite parties have also no objection to pay the surrender value.

9.                In view of the foregoing circumstances, the claim of the complainant for refund of the entire amount of the premiums deposited by him with the opposite parties, merits dismissal, therefore, the complaint is hereby dismissed. However, he would remain entitle to get surrender value of the policy as per terms and conditions of the policy in case he surrender the policy with the opposite parties.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 1.8.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member